3 ms·
"deadnaming" someone is enough to get you banned from a number of social media sites, or to have stories about the "deadnamed" censored from news sites.
by indy 3y ago
"deadnaming" someone is enough to get you banned from a number of social media sites, or to have stories about the "deadnamed" censored from news sites.
- djur 3y agoIt's always been common for online communities to ban people for being intentionally rude. I think we're still in the process of figuring out the preferred etiquette for historical references to people who changed their names, but that will settle before long.
- cubefox 3y agoSo you call social media censorship "etiquette" now. That's one way to make it sound nicer. Here is a novel concept: You don't have to follow people you don't like on social media. Your "etiquette" seems to be just an attempt to legitimize censorship.
- djur 3y agoOnline communities are well within their rights to limit their membership to people willing to follow their rules of conduct. That's freedom of association, which is as fundamental a right as freedom of speech.
- cubefox 3y agoA social networking site is not an online community. As I said, you select whom you follow. Basically you chose your own "community" out of a countless number of possible communities. There is no need for censorship, since you chose yourself whom to follow.